User talk:Tiptoety/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

Lorenzo Cappiello

You deleted the Lorenzo Cappiello page in the middle of an AfD discussion. Should the related pages also be deleted, and the discussion closed? Thanks. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Someone beat me to it. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 17:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Notification

I've asked the referee panel to convene, as seen here. Thank you. --Tznkai (talk) 18:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Bkonrad

Barring any argument on your part. I intend to unblock this user. He has made a statement of apology on his unblock request with an expressed intent to take his edit war to the talk page rather than to continue reverting. As a long time user with very little history of disruption, I see no reason to make him wait out the block. Trusilver 18:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I have left a note on the users talk page. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 18:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I'm going to be on for a large amount of time today. I will be the disambig page in question to make sure the war doesn't continue. Trusilver 18:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 18:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

123.2.123.220

What was your basis for blocking this IP as an open proxy? It turns out that it isn't. Daniel Case (talk) 19:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It was on a single RBL when I checked. Looks like it is dynamic. Thanks for the unblock. Tiptoety ^talk 06:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

User Nikitn

How to deal with this disruptive editor [1]? Seems like he doesn't understand how Wikipedia works. He constantly use uncivil language and makes disruptive edits so it's impossible to edit articles. He hardly makes any other contributions except making reverts with abusive language such as [2]. Once he also vandalised my userpage, but while using his IP [3]. He uses the worst uncivil language while using IP like here [4]. Another editor (User:Petri Krohn) with better relations to Russian editors has even adviced him to stop his edit warring but as you can see without result [5]. He has even started to revert his edits [6]. Also an administrator (User:Scarian) has warned him about it. What to do? Närking (talk) 20:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

He has been blocked for 24 hours. I hope this shows him that his actions are disruptive. If he continues once the block expires feel free to leave me another note. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 02:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for fast action! Närking (talk) 07:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

ANI

He has sent several messages over the past few days. He has been blocked as a sock but was unblocked. Can you help or may I do the same thing to others? Onedayonly (talk) 06:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Like I said before, I would need to know who the user in question is otherwise there is nothing I can do. Tiptoety ^talk 06:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser

Tiptoety,

in this edit[7] you removed Kermanshasi 4 to the completed requests: however, this was a reactivated request where the last two names on the list were added after the first round of checkusering and were in the end not checkusered (AFAIK). Could you either inform me why it was rejected / closed, or move it back to the open requests? Thanks! Fram (talk) 09:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Hm, when I looked at it the case appeared completed. Either way, I have relisted the case. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 15:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

The_captain_rommel_of_the_desert...back again?

I notice that you are the admin who blocked: User:The_captain_rommel_of_the_desert and some of his subsequent socks. It appears that a new sock User:FireSkater may have appeared. The SSP report I filed is here: Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/The_captain_rommel_of_the_desert. It's only a suspicion at this point - but a strong one. SteveBaker (talk) 04:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

This may be the captain, but I strongly suspect it may be someone impersonating another well known vandal. In any case, I have indef blocked the account. KnightLago (talk) 18:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Tiptoety ^talk 20:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I trust your judgement. SteveBaker (talk) 21:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear Tiptoety

I am sorry if am sending this message in uncorrect manner. But I have a problem with your classification of my account Xetra80 as a sock puppet. The reason why I wrote under Igor80 first and then Xetra80 , is because I lost first username. I believe I did not have any email reference, and did not manage to successfully restore username Igor80, so I created my second username Xetra80, I came into an edit revert war with Middayexpress whom has a very bad record of revert wars in various sections, and because of our previous discussions he managed to label me as an sockpuppet user. I admit I'm not the most expert wikipedia user , my only intention of creating my only username at that time was because I had lost Igor80 in the beginning. I would have preferred to be asked instead of indirectly being blocked without being allowed to explain myself.

I have now registered my new permanent username with email Xetra8080 to speak with you. And ask to be allowed to use Xetra80 with email adresse. and delete this one instead.

Looking forward to hear from you

Sincerely Xetra8080 Xetra8080 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xetra8080 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not the administrator who blocked you, and as such I ask that you bring it up with them. Please see User:X!. Tiptoety ^talk 21:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi again

I just read he is mourning over the death of a friend. maybe its not the right time to bother him/her.

Thank you anyway.Xetra8080 (talk)

User Narking

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Please do not continue the dispute here, Tiptoety ^talk 21:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Hey, that guy Narking is a hypocrite. In the page "battle of Poltava" he keeps removing contributions (Ukrainian Point of View of the casualties and strength). He either removes it, or changes the name to "Russian sources say" instead of "Ukrainian sources say" (I took my source from UKRAINIAN encyclopaedia, not Russian encyclopaedia), like I wrote (thus vandalizing my contribution). He also ignores my complaints.

Can you give him a warning or something? Because it is getting annoying. He should stop deleting/changing the sources, and simply accept that someone else have a different point of view.

PS. Narking clearly provoked me into being so rude. He just fails to mention his own "messages" to me.

PPS. I already sorted the battle of Grengam article (by presenting both POW's). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikitn (talk • contribs) 14:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

What this user doesn't understand is that Encyclopedia of Ukraine is a project by the Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies in Alberta, Canada. It's correct the encyclopedia is about Ukraine, but to add figures from there and call them Ukrainian sources is certainly not true. The mainstream view among historians are the figures I and others have put in the article. Then there are Russian imperial and Soviet figures that are clearly exaggerated. Several editors think they don't need to be in the infobox but as a compromise I have put them there to show the Russian/Soviet figures. That user Nikitn thinks this is some kind of common Ukrainian view is just ridiculous for anyone that study and knows the subject. I have no idea why he does this. Many times he also has reverted without even reading what he is reverting. And to start with he for a long time constantly was removing the mainstream view figures and changed to what he calls "Ukrainian figures". And now I also see he has made the article about the battle of Grengam unreadable... It's really sad and will probably make people leave Wikipedia. Especially when they are met with uncivil language by people who doesn't even care to check sources. Närking (talk) 20:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User Narking 2

Please take a look at WP:DISPUTE and get a third opinion. Continuing the debate/dispute here will solve nothing seeing as no administrative action needs to be taken Tiptoety talk 19:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so I see he has made many lies. 1. The Encyclopaedia of Ukraine is the best source for Ukraine on the English language. 2. It is written by Ukrainians. 3. The figure I provided IS the most "mainstream view" of Ukrainians, since it stands in the Ukrainian encyclopaedia.. Also, the Ukrainian article of the battle of Poltava supports my view, both in Swedish Casualties AND Swedish strength. 4. The Swedish Historian's figures are the mainstream among Swedish historians. 5. Russian imperial figures ARE NOT Soviet figures. The Figueres in the Soviet encyclopaedia are historic estimates as well. Also, the Soviet encyclopaedia is underestimated. Many Swedes think it is just a book of lies, but it is actually a valuable source, and is frequently used to determine casualties in wiki articles, particularly Russian (like in the siege of Sevastopol). 6. The cute thing now is, that Narking tries to turn ME as the bad guy. All I did was write the Ukrainian POW, and he removed it, arrogantly stating: "Stop confusing the reader!". This is how the entire arguments started. 7. The battle of Grengam article is only a mess in his head. Look at it admin, please. I also see that it has been changed into an even better one, after the editing of another user. 8. I request that the user Narking is banned from editing Battle of Poltava and Battle of Grengam if he continues with his annoying, and vandalizing edits. Umm, one word. PROOF. Until you actually have any sort of backing (at ALL), your argument is empty air. And why is not the Ukrainian view allowed? Umm, they were part of the battle, in big time, last time I checked. Also, major parts of the Russian imperial army were Ukrainians, last time I checked. As I said before, your argument is empty air without proof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikitn (talk • contribs) 11:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC) Once again read before you write. Yes, Encyclopedia of Ukraine is often a good source, no one has said anything else. It´s a good work made by Canadian historians. In this case, the article about the battle at Poltava they have used imperial Russian figures. And I have also argumented for having the Russian view in the infobox, even though other editors didn't think it was needed. In contrast to user Nikitn who for weeks were deleting the mainstream view among historians (and not only Swedish ones). This he continued with for weeks while making rude comments. Finally he stopped doing so, which is good. I asked him to explain on the talkpage why there should be a Ukrainian view (if there were any different from the mainstream) in the infobox (we simply can't have a Polish, German, French, Italian view there, it's just silly), but sadly he just answer with rude words. He even turns to threats [8]. And about the Battle of Grengam. There Nikitn had stopped any possible editing for a long time because he was constantly reverting. Now when he has stopped other editors have started to contribute in a co-operative way, which Nikitn sadly lacks. Hopefully it can now turn into a readable article. Närking (talk) 12:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Rollback

Yeah, I was aware of that. I just wasn't thinking very clearly at the time. (man I've got to stop huggling when I'm tired.. :/ ) Thanks for letting me know and I'll be more careful in the future. Thingg^⊕⊗ 16:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay. It was just a reminder. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 19:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Rollback Help!!!!

Hi, I recently applied for rollback and received approval! Unfortunately, I found that I don't have the rollback feature yet... please help!!! :(
-Fastily (talk) 04:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It appears the flag has been removed, please see this. You may want to contact the administrator who declined your request. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 05:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Replying elsewhere

Greetings Tiptoety - thanks for taking an interest in my paranoia. Am replying to your question at User talk:Scarian 'cos your request for knock-knock jokes threw me and I've forgotten the exact wording of yours of even date. If I come across any knock-knocks, I'll drop 'em off here. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 22:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a deal! :P Tiptoety ^talk 22:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

RRaunak

I have renamed RRaunak (talk · contribs), who you blocked for sockpuppetery to RRuk (talk · contribs) on the grounds of right to privacy. He contacted us privately via email. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the heads up. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 15:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocked from editing

Hi. You have blocked me from editing, because you say I violated the 3-revert rule on the article: Čelebići prison camp. However, according to the Three-revert rule, "Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period". But I have only reverted once and was immediately blocked. I can only assume you counted my previous reverts before I was engaged in an edit-war. Then I can understand...however..

You have blocked for more than a period of 24 hours. I was blocked on Thursday, November 13 and my block is set to expire on Saturday, November 15 at 21:14. That is more than 48 hours.

Also, the user I am in an edit-war with is Kruško Mortale. Now he has repeatedly reverted edits for no reason and has not been blocked from editing. Please look into it and I ask you that you be fair. Thanks.

-Dfener91 (talk)

regarding Somaliland article revert feud

Hi user X! has yet to answer my reply. I really find the blocking of my username Xetra80 unjust and not to answer back or review the Somaliland case is really dissapointing.

I dont think user X! has any interest of following up the case. Overall Wikipedia is the one loosing again not me or you administrators.

If I dont find any constructive reply --- with action. The only solution is to leave the site for me.

regards Xetra Xetra8080 (talk) 01:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Patience is a virtue. Tiptoety ^talk 01:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

In coherence to the dynamics of wikipedia, this type of patience is not fitting. Good luck with having an extremist south somalian rule Somaliland articl and sections.

Xetra8080 (talk)

Sofia Shinas

Would you please take a look at the comment at the bottom of my talk page about this? I'm not sure what to advise the editor. Thanks. dougweller (talk) 16:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Dream Director (artwork)

Hi, you deleted this article as an expired PROD. The given reason was that it only had one reliable source. However an editor (BirchallDanny) has contacted me to say he had added another reliable reference from the Independent, which certainly looks ok to me, but didn't realise he could remove the PROD tag himself. The BBC Radio 4 external link looks like it provides evidence of notability also. I think it should be undeleted, or at least go to AfD, but just wanted to check with you a the deleting admin in case you thought differently. the wub "?!" 14:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

No objections. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 20:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Drunkencorgimaster

See: User talk:Drunkencorgimaster User caught by a checkuser autoblock. As this was instituted by a checkuser, I thought it prudent to seek out that checkuser before undoing the autoblock. Could you look into this, and either unblock or decline as appropriate. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Tiptoety ^talk 20:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy Tiptoety/Archive 20's Day!

User:Tiptoety/Archive 20 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Tiptoety/Archive 20's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Tiptoety/Archive 20! Peace, Rlevse ~ A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow Rlevse, I feel so...special :P Thanks! Tiptoety ^talk 00:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi there

I would just like to ask a question about a particular template and it is the Template:Repeat vandal one. Should this template be substituted? On the actual page it is sort of conflicting. In the template usage notes it states subst but above that it says not to, that change was done by Darkwind back in 2007, unfortunately he is not active anymore otherwise i would have asked him. His change was based on this discussion. Whats your opinion? Don't think the difference matters that much but just want it cleared up. Cheers Monster Under Your Bed ^(talk) 09:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Hm, to be honest I am not sure it really matters but you can always bring the issue up on the templates talk page for further discussion. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 19:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Love Systems

Hi Tiptoety,

I was working on a "company page" and I wanted to make sure several Wikipedia admins would approve the page. Whenever you have time, could you give me some pointers on how to improve the page? The page has to go through a DRV before it can get back up. Any feedback is much appreciated!

The page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Coaster7/Love_Systems

Thanks in advance. Coaster7 (talk) 01:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Page

Can I please make my user page again? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jungle high (talk • contribs) 05:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but please ensure that you fallow Wikipedia's userpage policy. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 05:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

So how do I go about re-creating my ol user page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jungle high (talk • contribs) 06:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Simply click the "edit this page" or "create page" tab, type in what you want in the edit box, then click "save page" under the edit summary. Just like you would any other page. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 06:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It won't exactly let me do that. It just informs me that you deleted the page and that I am attempting to edit a page that has been deleted.Pajama Sam (talk) 06:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I know, just ignore that, edit the page and click save page anyways. Tiptoety ^talk 06:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.Pajama Sam (talk) 06:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Deleting my talk page -plethora of emails and dewatch

Perhaps you could give me pointers on how to save diffs where someone will not delete them. That editor has posted several personal attacks on me, just recently a series of diffs from a year ago. How does an editor manage to save those in secret, but available at the drop of a hat? I think my problem is that I refuse to use emails. I think that is how all this negativity is compiled with people ganging up in cabals. You are not one of them, as far as I know, but now I will have to worry. Cheers! —Mattisse (Talk) 01:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello Mattisse, let me start by saying I am pleased to see that you did not reinstate the comments back to your talk page (though I noticed you placed them in your archives).

Diff's like that generally come off as attacks if just left sitting around unless they are used to file a WP:WQ report or a WP:RFC, though that may not be your intention. Often times user subpages created for the sole purpose of documenting other users behavior have been deleted at WP:MfD as attack pages and such. So here is my recommendation, either file a RfC or other report using those diffs (though I will not comment on whether the diffs or users actions are block worthy) or create a word document and keep them there. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 01:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Ben Alekzsander Williams

Hello there!

Just noticed that this page has now been deleted after debate whether it should be kept or not. Would you please take a look at the page again? I'm not sure it's fair to delete this, after looking at some other articles for deletion that are being somehow kept.

After the page including detailed sources and notabilty, I expected the page to be kept. However, I do very much appreciate that you're doing your job and I respect that. Please, take another look, and if it could be kept - that would be great! Thanks again CrackersTeam (talk) 13:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

At this time I feel that my closure was correct and well within the confines of policy. If you would like a review of my actions, you can request a deletion review. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 17:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou for writing back Tiptoety. I have done what you suggested.

Thankyou for helping x CrackersTeam (talk) 18:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Guido den Broeder

Required notice to all parties involved with the Guido den Broeder ban/block/discussion: I have appealed the ban on his behalf at WP:RFAR. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry about the rollback request I had. I'm still new to many wikipedia things, and i didnt' know I wasn't supposed to copy and paste my request. Deavenger (talk) 21:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

No worries! Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 21:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for fulfilling my rollback request!

Thank you very much for attending to my request! I shall now start to patrol again! Optakeover (talk) 08:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

You are very welcome. Have fun, Tiptoety ^talk 08:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I've got a question. In my request, I made a few mistakes that I have not corrected. May I correct them? Optakeover (talk) 08:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

If you like. Tiptoety ^talk 08:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

That's completed. Thank you! Optakeover (talk) 08:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Hey there. Just replying to your message about the 3RR on Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky. As I felt that the user was removing code from an article without justification (in this case, the "gay musicians" category where the issue was mentioned in the article), I selected the revert & warn "removal of content" option in Huggle. This was chosen as no edit summary was provided; the user was then asked to justify why they were removing content, and then tip-toed around the issue (no pun intended :p). And as Huggle was used, the edits were apparently reverted by the software using the rollback feature (not blaming it on the software or anything - just saying that I didn't intentionally perform rollback on that user's edits).

Anywho, it's all sorted now - you were just doing your ... well not job, but you know what I mean :)

Happy editing :)

Chrisch^Talk 12:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

PS: I've just come across your new message re: rollback, and it appears that I did in fact rollback that particular edit instead of one on a different article. I'm more familiar with the Huggle tool now, so please accept my apologies for making this error - it won't happen again :)

Chrisch^Talk 13:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Very cold, must type about the Oregon COTW to stay warm

Hello again from WikiProject Oregon’s Collaboration of the Week HQ. Since there was no notice last time, thanks to those who helped improve Mike Riley and Mike Bellotti at the begging of the month and to those who helped create Oregon Department of Justice and Lindsay Applegate last week. Those last two were the red links with lots of links to them from other articles (DOJ was #1). For this week, in honor of Arctic Blast/Winter Storm/Damn its Freakin’ Cold Outside 2008/Storm of the Century/Is there ANYTHING else going on in the world?/We Might Actually Have a White Christmas, we have Snow Bunny. Then as part of the Stub elimination drive, we have state senator Margaret Carter, which could easily be turned into a nice DYK entry once expanded 5X. As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Have a Holly Jolly Christmas/Hanukah/ Kwanzaa/Winter Solstice. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Page protection

Hello, I see that you maintain some page protection duties. On January 12, the Baseball Hall of Fame inductees will be announced, and it is expected that Rickey Henderson will easily make this list. News-making articles generally create traffic and unwanted edits. Is there a way to pre-emptively protect that article? (Not today, but maybe Jan 11 or so?) Thanks. Timneu22 (talk) 16:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no. The protection policy states that "...protection should not be used as a pre-emptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used solely to prevent editing by anonymous and newly registered users." While this is the rule most everyone goes by there are always exceptions to the rule, and if it does appear that protection will be needed, you can always request further review/comment at WP:ANI. Tiptoety ^talk 19:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Personal comments

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I'd appreciate it if you didn't post personal comments about me - as here. Yes, indeed, I was blocked for edit-warring with Domer48 (yet Domer48 was not edit-warring). I used the time to compile a case against this editor who has been in personal conflict with me for some time. Up until now I have tolerated it, but I decided when I got banned that I had to do something about it. This editor has driven others away from articles and from Wikipedia and I genuinely do not believe that to be beneficial to the encyclopaedia. I have never complained about anyone before - nor even considered it - so saying that I am "right back to my old tricks" is inaccurate, unwarranted, and contravenes guidelines on civility and personal attacks. Mooretwin (talk) 20:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

To paraphrase Tiptoety pot and kettle come to mind, you have been warned here not to continue your attacks on editors and back from a block and still attacking Domer this has to stop. BigDunc^Talk 11:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I have indeed been warned about "personal attacks", and hence, as advised, I have taken my case through the recommended channels. The same rules have to apply to everyone - if I am not allowed to make personal comments, then neither is Tiptoey, yourself or anyone else. Mooretwin (talk) 11:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Repeating accusations on multiple Admin and talk pages [9], [10] [11] [12] is not the recommended channels. --Domer48_'fenian' 11:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

You appear to be following me around. This is the third different user page you have followed me to. I have brought my complaints, as advised, to AE. As I understand it that is the recommended channel. I have made no "accusations" anywhere else. I've asked you already, but I'll ask again: Please stop following me and leave me alone. Mooretwin (talk) 11:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Email

Hi,

I sent you an email request. PeterThompson48 (talk) 20:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Hm, I have not received it. Make sure that you push the the email user tab located on the left had side of the page. Tiptoety ^talk 20:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, wait is it in regards to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free and Easy? Because I replied to that a long time ago. Check your mailbox. Tiptoety ^talk 20:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Re:Rollback

Thank you very much for intrusting me with the priviledge of rollback, I won't let you down!--Iamawesome800 20:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Have fun. Tiptoety ^talk 20:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

#wikipedia-en-unblock

Hi Tiptoety, you kicked me off for channel idling -- I admit to forgetting to get out of IRC when I went to bed, and I couldn't remember how to change from away (bad of me, I must figure that one out again, I know it's simple) but I was there in response to a request from Lar on AN or ANI to act faster on unblock requests. dougweller (talk) 06:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I made a mistake...I did not link you IRC nick to your on-wiki username and did not know you were a admin. You are more than welcome to rejoin the channel. Sorry, Tiptoety ^talk 22:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Tiptoety, my very best wishes for the festive season stay safe and talk to you in 2009.--VS ^talk 11:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Have a great Christmas, Tiptoety! Keep it real! Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 12:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

If I don't see you, have a merry Christmas. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 05:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Just popping on real fast to wish everyone a happy holiday. Thanks for all the nice comments. See you all next year! Tiptoety ^talk 22:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Userpage

Just so you know, I've semiprotected your userpage for 24 hours to stop a vandal with a dynamic IP. Hut 8.5 20:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Tiptoety ^talk 22:32, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

As you may already know

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus_2#Boodlesthecat_banned. What should have been done months ago... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Well yes, that long with quite a few other sanctions, desyops, and bans. Happy holidays, Tiptoety ^talk 22:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

A special message, just for you! → → → →

Happy holidays, TippyToe!! (hee hee)

May your holidays be filled with family, friends, and fun, and may the new year bring you much joy. Ariel♥Gold 21:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

As with many designs on Wikipedia, this one was of course, inspired by the wonderfully talented Phaedriel, the "design Obi Wan".

Happy holidays! Tiptoety ^talk 22:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

AfC news

Dear AfC participant,

1. Msgj and Tnxman307 are organising the AfC challenge! It's a little competition to help improve some of the articles created through AfC and we are hoping that everyone will get involved. For level 1, you just need to bring a stub up to Start-class. Level 2 is improving a Start-class article to C-class. And so on. To get involved or for more information please see the competition page.
2. Those of you who haven't reviewed an article recently might not have noticed the new process that was implemented this year. Reviewing articles is now more enjoyable than ever :) You might like to give it a try. All articles waiting for review are in Category:Pending Afc requests. (Please read the updated instructions.)
3. Please consider adding {{AFC status}} to your userpage to keep track of the number of articles waiting for review. At the time of writing we are officially backlogged, so help is needed!
4. There is currently a proposal to bring the Images for upload process under the umbrella of WikiProject Articles for creation. The rationale is that both processes are designed to allow unregistered users to take part more fully in Wikipedia, and partipants in each process can probably help each other.

If you no longer wish to receive messages from WikiProject Articles for creation, please remove your name from this list. Thank you.

Rollback request

I posted a request for rollback rights on the requests for rollback page. I noticed that you had been active on this recently and I wanted to see if I could request this from you directly. As I mentioned, I actively monitor a broad universe of finance and company related articles and think I could use this tool responsibly and selectively. Any help on this would be appreciated. |► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 04:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It appears another administrator has declined your request. Sorry, Tiptoety ^talk 06:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I saw the response. I have tried to make the case to Wehwalt directly on his talk page. I would point out that, he just became an admin last week. I am not sure that rollback rights are given out based on expected volume of usage but rather on whether it would be productive to wikipedia for a specific user to have those rights. I am responsible and can be trusted to use this properly. Let me know if you have any thoughts. |► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 12:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and commented at Wehwalt's talk page. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 19:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on this - I appreciated your comments - Would you be inteested in approving me for rollback since Wehwalt just seemed to delete the discussion from his talk page. Thanks. |► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 21:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

← Done Tiptoety ^talk 19:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence. I won't let you down. |► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 19:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Another one

Another. ayematthew ✡ 18:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

19:41, 26 December 2008 Nick (Talk | contribs | block) blocked 4.154.48.17 (Talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: sockpuppet of User:Oreius editing in breach of block not expiring until 7 January 2009) Tiptoety ^talk 19:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Greetings from user Srirangam99 and humble submissions for you to take notice and act upon

Dear Tiptoety,

I request you to have a careful look at the pages of history edited by User Dinesh Kannambadi who while claiming to source material from ‘reliable’ sources, is at the same time indulging in feeding of completely unverified and unreliable pieces of information.

This communication from me may kindly be regarded by you as one among a series of interactions with you with my sole aim being the betterment of history pages of Wikipedia and nothing else.

It has been my experience while trying to contribute to history pages or indeed indulge in discussions for betterment of Wikipedia pages, whatever we do users like Dinesh Kannambadi have objected to always and have branded our contributions as vandalism and sourcing from POV websites etc.

Just take note of the contradictory nature of his editing of history pages especially on the Chalukya Empires especially with reference to the Chola Empire (pls. also remember that in Wikipedia for God knows what reason, the pages on the Chola Empire have been christened as Chola Dynasty despite that the fact that the Cholas prospered at the helm of an empire having large territories not just in India but also overseas including Sri Lanka, Maldives, very large parts of South East Asia for at least 150 years of their existence. Here are the examples: but before that I would like to say this that deliberately, user Dinesh Kannambadi has been trying to mention or project the Chalukya dynasty as some sort of a contemporary of the Chola empire and has even gone on to mention the demise of the Chola empire (saying that the Chola territories were taken over by the Pandiyas), which has a great weakness:

the Chalukya dynasty had very weak kings from 1126 onwards and between 1135/1140 to 1175 their kings were displaced and the Kalachuris under Bijjala I and Bijjala II ruled Kannada country in India. The Chalukyas did make a comeback but that was for just 10-15 years between 1185 to 1198 after which they went into oblivion. I request that you may kindly contrast this with the fate of the Cholas, whose kings from AD 1170 though were not as strong as their kings between AD 848-1165, yet one of their last great kings Kulothunga III on the strength of epigraphical and inscriptional evidence is said to have occupied Madurai, Karur and Sri Lanka (then known as Ilangai) between 1185-1200 AD. He ruled for around 45 years though near the end of his rule he was indeed routed by the Pandiyans and held on to his empire with great difficulty, having Hoysalas as his allies. Yet, even with weak kings following him after 1218, the Cholas lasted till 1279, when their last king lost to the Pandiyas and the Cholas went into oblivion.

Contrast the above i.e. the demise of the Cholas in 1279 or 1280 to that of the Chalukyas, who were first of all without a capital for over 35 years and re-emerged for just 10-15 years and became history by AD 1195 or thereabouts. Yet, jingoism seems to get the better of user Dinesh Kannambadi and he has written in the Western Chalukya Empire page as under: the link is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Chalukyas and the relevant portion of text is the following:

This period saw the fall of two great empires, the Chalukyas of the western deccan and the Cholas of Tamilakam. On the ruins of these two empires were built the Kingdoms of their feudatories whose mutual antagonisms filled the annals of Deccan history for over a hundred years, the Pandyas taking control over some regions of the erstwhile Chola empire.

Though (technically speaking at least) as per the version of Dinesh Kannambadi, the Chalukyas fell and demised in 1191/1195 and the Cholas demised after almost 9 decades in about 1279/80…. i.e. within a hundred years of each other… I would like to raise the question what is the justification for his expression …”This period saw the fall of two great empires…” I mean what is meant by “this period”? Surely, if both empires had fallen within two or three decades of each other, then the expression could be a little contemporaneous… but even as a weak empire the Cholas lasted till 1280 almost 84 years after the Chalukyas demised.. then what is the reason and justification for mentioning the demise of the Cholas when the subject on the page i.e. the Chalukya dynasty, which went into oblivion in the year 1191 or 1195????

The point is that whether it is mentioning the Hoysalas another Kannada empire or the Chalukyas, he is obsessed with their portrayals as some sort of contemporaries of the Cholas.. even while mentioning Chalukya architecture, user Dinesh Kannambadi cannot resist bringing in the Cholas;;; see this write up on Kasivisveswara temple built by the Chalukyas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kasivisvesvara_Temple

“The existence of a 1087 CE inscription on a beam in the temple mantapa (hall) and the plainness of that part of the temple suggests that the original construction may have been simpler and that the profusion of decoration may have been added to the other parts of the temple at a later period, with the end of Chola invasions of Chalukyan territory”.

Here too, the user cannot mention a Chalukya temple without somehow talking about the Cholas. In other words, for him the Chalukyas were always showing their valour in fighting with the Cholas, which was scarcely true because their main sphere of enmity was over the control of Vengi which was far away from both the Chalukya and Chola capitals.

This user also severely contradicts himself further while giving innumerable lectures to others about reliablity of sources etc. when his own sources of information are thoroughly unreliable, here is how: please now visit the page of the first Western Chalukya king Tailapa-II:

Tailapa's victories

“The Cholas, who were experiencing a minor crisis of succession of their own were in a position of weakness. Uththama Chola had replaced Parantaka Chola II and Tailapa claimed victory in a battle against Uththama in 980”.

Strangely, the user has only mentioned two authors below this page namely K.A.N.Sastry and Suryanath Kamath as his sources but from both sources he has not been able to pin point which venue it was where Tailapa-II is supposed to have claimed his victory over Uthama Chola. Sir, it is well known in the anals of Chola history that Uthama Chola had his nephew Raja Raja Chola I the original claimant to the Chola throne as his general and both Raja Raja Chola I and his son Rajendra I are famous as two Kings of India who have never lost on the battle field. But that is not the question here… in Uthama Chola’s anals there never was a war with Tailapa-II, only his predecessor Sundara Chola fought against the Rashtrakutas and regained Thondaimandalam Nellore and nearby Telugu country, and Arcot areas from them.

Please read further from the same page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tailapa_II

Period of consolidation

In 992. Raja Raja Chola was vanquished and the Chalukya monarch secured one hundred and fifty elephants Sir, please contrast with the crystal clear information given on the pages of the Chola king Raja Raja I: the relevant link is : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajaraja_Chola_I

“The southern kingdoms of Pandyas, Cheras and the Sinhalas were often allied against the Cholas.[3] It was the case when Rajaraja came to the throne. Rajaraja's initial campaigns were against the combined Pandya and Chera armies. There is no evidence of any military campaign undertaken by Rajaraja until the eighth year of his reign. During this period he was engaged in organising and augumenting his army and in preparing for military expeditions”.[4][5]

Sir, the above information is very significant in that Raja Raja was supposed to have ascended to the Chola throne in the year 985 and as per information on the page on Chalukya king Tailapa-II, Raja Raja I was supposed to have lost in battle to him in the AD 992. The user has refused to make any changes to the page, nor is prepared to come up with any proof or verifiable evidence despite the fact that I have shown him extracts from Epigraphica Indica which have been carried on in the site www.whatsindia.com/inscriptions/south_indian_inscriptions/ which has contributions from the former Archaeologists from the Archaeological Survey of India, but user Dinesh Kannambadi maintains that the findings of ASI have to be verified by historians of his choice.

Kindly see this further: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satyasraya

Rajaraja Chola distracted the attention of Satyasraya by sending his son Rajendra Chola I to invade Rattapadi in the west and thus compelled him to withdraw his army from Vengi for the defence of his realm.

During his reign the Paramaras and Chedi reconquered the territory that they had lost to the Chalukyas earlier. But Satyashraya was able to defeat Raja Raja Chola and the crown prince Rajendra Chola when they invaded parts of Karnataka.

Sir, it is submitted that first of all it is pure jingoism when user Dinesh Kannambadi contributes that Satyashraya defeated both Raja Raja and Rajendra Chola when they invaded parts of Karnataka.

Kindly see this portion on the page on Satyashraya itself once again:

Seeing increased interference of Cholas in Vengi, Satyasraya invaded Vengi in 1006.

Wars with the Cholas

The Cholas responded with a two-pronged attack on the Vengi kingdom and on the Western Chalukya territory itself. The Chola armies were led by Rajendra Chola I. Rajendra marched up to Donur near Kudalasangama and Unakal near Hubli and plundered the entire county, slaughtering women, men and children and threatening the Chalukya capital Manyakheta. Satyasrya was thus compelled to withdraw from Vengi and retreat to his kingdom in the western Deccan.

After many bloody battles, Satyashraya managed to push back the Chola advance to the banks of the river Tungabhadra.

Sir kindly see carefully the contradiction first on this page when the user mentions that Raja Raja and Rajendra were defeated when they entered parts of Karnataka…. This is wholly untrue.. why?

Because the user himself contributes that Rajendra marched up to Donur near Kudalasangama and Unekal near Hubli and plundered the country.

This is POV posting by the user when he merely mentions the Cholas in terms of “plundering the country and creating havoc” He avoids the word ‘defeat of the Chalukyas at the hands of the Cholas’ and goes on further to lie earlier that they could not enter parts of Karnataka… 'Sir, it is very interesting here to note that both ‘Donur near Kudalasangama’ and ‘Unekal near Hubli’ are very much parts of interior Karnataka and are not at all far from the Chalukyan capital of Manyakheta.' In fact the Big Temple at Thanjavur, which was till the time of Raja Raja Chola I, and is a World Heritage Site at that, contains inscriptions of almost every Chola king and countless artefacts and other precious architectural material from the Chalukya country which are found in both Thanjavur and Gangaikonda Cholapuram which are proofs of Chola victory in Chalukya country against Satyashraya, which this user is zealously trying to avoid mentioning.

I leave it to your judgment on these contractory pieces of information.

Kindly read the page on the next important Chalukyan King Jayasimha, this is because Jayasimha’s predecessor Vikramaditya V like Satyashraya himself was a tribute paying subordinate of Rajendra Chola I – anyone will tell you from the inscriptions at the Big Temple in Tanjore: but in the meanwhile read this interesting contradiction:

“Rajendra Chola I was the primary enemy of the Chalukyas. Cholas were exerting influence in the Vengi kingdom of the Eastern Chalukyas. The Cholas were constantly trying to expand their kingdom northwards into the Chalukyan kingdom. Satyasraya had tried to stop Chola influence in Vengi and had to suffer the Chola invasion in retaliation. He however repulsed the Chola invasion from his territories in the battle at Masangi.

Soon after his accession, Jayasimha tried to retrieve the losses suffered by Satyasraya”

Sir kindly note here that no defeat of Satyashraya was mentioned in the page on him rather there were only claims of victories by him registered against Rajendra and Raja Raja Chola… but in the page on Jayasimha: it is mentioned, soon after his accession Jayasimha tried to retrieve the losses suffered by Satyashraya. In case Satyashraya lost, why was this not acknowledged on Satyashraya’s page itself? Above, he also mentions the battle of Masangi where Satyashraya met with a ‘supposed’ success.. Why was this not mentioned with verifiable proof in the same Satyashraya page earlier?

Kindly note and be informed that in Chola annals verified by any number of historians… the information pertains to invasion and conquest of ‘Rattapadi’ – which implies the land of the Rashtrakutas – which was later taken over by the Chalukyas after the overthrow of the Rashtrakutas. Later other Chalukya kings further lost Rattapadi to the Cholas like Jayasimha also to Rajendra Chola, his successor lost Rattapadi and his capital and queen to Rajendra II and Virarajendra in five successive battles. Yet all these facts go completly unacknowledged in the Chalukya pages. I repeat once again for your benefit, that all the kings from Raja Raja Chola I to Kulothunga I repeatedly mention conquering 'seven and a half lakshas of Rattapadi' in their inscriptions at the Big Temple, Tanjore. That phrase means nothing but the conquest of Chalukya territory with the capital of the kingdom being at Maynakhetha (called Mannaikadakkam in Chola and Tamil annals.

Sir, all of the above is proof of the fact that user Dinesh Kannambadi is presenting misleading information on the Chalukya history pages on Tailapa and Satyashraya and is otherwise resorting to blatant lying. I have confronted him numerous number of times and he has resorted to complaining to another admin Blinguen (now changed his i.d. to Yellowmonkey on wikipedia).. who either blocks other contributors like me (twice without assigning any reason nor indeed indulging in any conversation or argument with me and without letting me explain my position) For the present this is my submission and I leave you to form your judgment on the course of corrective action to be taken.

Thanks and do reply.

Srirangam99 (talk) 13:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear admin, please deny the user Srirangam99.this user assumes too much POV and always having BAD FAITH. he misrepresent the sourced info to his POV, see here [13], and again here and also see his edit summary, he is continued to make an attack on Dinesh, see here calling him as crying wolf . and note that few months ago he was blocked for making PERSONAL ATTACKS AND HARRASMENT on dinesh by BINGUYEN, see his block log. Srirangam99 fails to be NEUTRAL and also he failed to provide valid reliable sources for his POV. 59.92.139.198 (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Humble Submission: User 59.92.139.198 does not have a talk page. He certainly is a sock puppet

Respected Admin,

I have always quoted my sources and have quoted them even now, I always invite neutral admins to check my postings (even now I have requested admin Taprobanus to examine my contributions and sources - hopefully he will do justice) in the meanwhile kindly examine my previous post and the contents of articles formed by user Dinesh Kannambadi whose close but invisible affiliate the user 59.92.139.198 professes to be. Also you can check on my earlier block record by user Blinguen (wrongly pronounced as Binguen by 59.92.139.198. Blinguen is now rechristened as user Yellowmonkey. First he blocked me without giving any reason... the second time he blocked me after merely making accusations against me saying that I have constantly posted 'personal' views and changed title of articles - all this without giving me notice and opportunity to reply.. thereby wholly and fully misusing his powers as an admin and acting at the behest of users like Dinesh Kannambadi, Sarvagnya and KNM. The identity of user 59.92.139.198 needs to be unvailed.

Srirangam99 (talk) 08:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Ring out the old,
and Ring in the new.
Happy New Year!
From FloNight

New Developments on the Chola Dynasty article

Please read this:

[edit] A call to wake Tamilusers' User:Srirangam99 is spoiling this article and he misrepresents the sourced info to his POV. by seeing his contributions one can say that he don't know anything about CHOLA DYNSATY. do anyone know who is he??? he is none other than our old friend User:Mahawiki or meatpuppet of mahawiki (by hard guess) see editsummary here, he himself refers that he is not mahawiki, LOL!! .

IMP NOTE TO ALL TAMILS: Westerners are watching every Indian FA articles, if some one sees this edits I'm sure they will start FAR. because see the infos added by User:Srirangam99 which is uncyclopedic, unsourced, usage of peacocks and weasel words. doing so, this article violates feature article criteria--> 1(a)-no professional standard (for Srirangam99 additions), 1(c) very imp one (no accurate sources) (for Srirangam99 additions), 1(d), 1(e) and 2(c) non-RS references.

I don't like to see this article lose FA status.

Now, its the time to wakeup' 59.92.173.134 (talk) 13:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)This user has emerged all of a sudden and seems an anonymous user. File making accusations at me he is committing the wrong act of segmenting and dividing contributors to wikipedia on the basis of Tamilians non-Tamilians etc. and is also resorting to veiled threats like Westerners are watching. His English also does not seem perfect.

In addition, there is again manipulative tactics being used by user Dinesh Kannambadi: Kindly see his communication prompting user/admin: YellowMonkey: (it is very significant to note here, that first Dinesh Kannambadi gives him a new year greeting message, then he prompts YellowMonkey complaining about me, there is no effort made as you will see from user Kannambadi's message to engage me in discussion or point out mistakes by me, if any, but simply revealing his manipulative actions in having prompted YellowMonkey to lock the Chola Dynasty article by trying to dub it as a block on me (Srirangam99 is back from his block and is creating havoc ......, subsequent to this, in order that others will not be able to notice his (incorrect, in my view) simply deletes the message from his talk page), following which YellowMonkey simply block protects the article preventing any one else from contributing to it and enabling betterment of the article's contents. Do visit the talk page on Chola Dynasty where I have made a huge posting detailing my sources and references and in addition, placing information on the quality of my sources and references. But what happens, we find that suddenly anonymous users like 59.92.173.134 have emerged posting all sorts of messages on my talk page and indulging in wanton editing or reverts on articles sought to be contributed by users like me. In the meanwhile the manipulation is all there for you to see in the message from user Dinesh Kannambadi to User/Admin: YellowMonkey:

+ ==Happy new year to you== 
 + And many more FA's, DYK's ... 
 + BTW, Srirangam99 is back from his block and causing havoc on Chola Dynasty.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC) 

I am sure you and other neutral admins will take action to prevent such things from happening in the future.

Please also do not hesitate to both advice and admonish me in case anything wrong has been done by me. Do leave a message on my talk page.

Once again, here's wishing you a very happy and prosperous new year. Thank you once more.

Srirangam99 (talk) 09:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Dear Tiptoety,

Wishing you a happy a new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.

Kind regards,

Majorly talk 20:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Same for you Majorly, I truly hope that we can overcome any issues we may have had in the past and work together towards a common goal: improving the project. If you ever have an issue with me, my actions, or whatever my email is always open. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 01:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Censored

Can you tell me please why you deleted my comment at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names. RashersTierney (talk) 12:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Oopsy, my mistake. You had placed your comment in the wrong section, using the wrong heading and so it got accidentally removed. I have fixed it. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 22:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. RashersTierney (talk) 23:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dr. Anymouse

It's not clear where to sign. Maybe that should be in the instructions. Thanks. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hm, never noticed that before. Either way, WP:SSP2 will be up and running here in a few days and should solve those issues. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 22:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes!!!!! I was always wondering why we needed both RfCU and RfSSP. Sometimes WP acts like a gigantic complex bureaucracy, where knowing how to navigate the bureaucracy means more than editing articles. That's why some people just go to the checkuser by email or on their talk to simplify the matter. That could be come problematic. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I know, I know. Why do you think I said enough is enough, lets just merge the two? Tiptoety ^talk 22:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

High School Musical 4

It is going to happen!!! I have auditioned. I gave sources!! Do you want more?!? ithasaprice (talk)

Please go to WP:DRV. Tiptoety ^talk 23:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Congrats

		The Writer's Barnstar
		I wish to acknowledge your tireless work in reverting vandalism on Wikipedia. South Bay (talk) 03:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Tiptoety ^talk 04:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The unasked question

Hey Tip,

I have to ask, how you knew that anonymous IP was Enigma's? I mean, I would have never put the two together, and yet you did... and you did so correctly. What gave it away, what made you realize/think they were one in the same?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 15:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I was waiting for someone to ask this question, and to be honest I really have no answer. After a year of dealing with sockpuppets (especially IPs) there are certain editing patterns I look for, times that editors edit, where the IP locates too, along with the type of edits the IP and the editor make. That, along with knowing a fair amount about Enigma (and a good deal of problem solving time) got me to the conclusion I made. Tiptoety ^talk 15:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, excellent work, I don't think I would have ever connected the dots that way... but you did and you were correct.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 19:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Username

You may wish to check out this user who I can across whilst huggling. His user name seems to be based on yours. Thought i'd better let you know ;-) Cheers! John Sloan (view / chat) 20:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I have a admirer :-P Nah, unless he does something block worthy I see no harm in it. Thanks for letting me know though, much appreciated. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 20:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

ResearchEditor RFCU

It may be total overkill or impossible, and I'm still not sure what it is, but would a hardblock of the IP address be warranted in this case? I think that would prevent even account creation, which means no future issues like this. And for some reason I'm now seeing the section header as a proper piped link. No idea what the problem was but thanks for the confirmation that I'm not going crazy or too stupid to edit the transcluded page WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Because all those accounts have been blocked it automatically enables a autoblock on the IP address the account was using. If the CheckUser felt that a IP block was warranted and would not effect too many innocent users than he would have done so. If ResearchEditor continues to sock, then we may need to consider some harder IP blocks, but at this point in the game I think what we did is just right here. Also, you are welcome for the help earlier. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 04:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the extra info, much obliged. I'll continue to monitor for more socking and file another RFCU if necessary. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Cutepiku

The page you deleted said she was 18. Not exactly a child... Dragons flight (talk) 05:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I know, please see my post to ANI. I made a mistake. Tiptoety ^talk 05:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

FFN001

I'll leave it to your judgement, you seem to have a good handle on how to control the problem. I have no objection to your removing or adjusting the block. Guy (Help!) 21:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you. Tiptoety ^talk 21:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for the help! FFN001 (talk) 00:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request of Cerejota

Hello Tiptoety. Cerejota (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards, — Aitias // discussion 22:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Eichikiyama

Hello, although the underlying IPs were blocked by the checkuser, the sock accounts are not bocked yet. I have assumed checkuser clerks would handle with blocking the socks, so would you take care of it? Thanks.--Caspian blue 08:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I also notice that you archived Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Julius Ceasarus From Primus‎, but the sockpuppeter is confirmed as same as Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. Could you merge them to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ for accumulating the history altogether? Thanks.--Caspian blue 08:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked and note made here. The page history and case pages are a bit too long for me to feel comfortable merging. Tiptoety ^talk 09:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Have a nice weekend!--Caspian blue 09:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Kalajan

A bit harsh and a bit late, but I hope he gets the message. ₰imon_K^S_K 20:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

He was edit warring plain and simple, so a block for edit warring is not harsh. Tiptoety ^talk 15:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit War?

I beg your pardon, but I was NOT involved in edit warring on the WWE Roster page. I was entering in sources to previously unsourced material (that had apparently been deemed "unreliable".) I was not making brash edit war edits. Dahumorist (talk) 03:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

"Lame" clarification

Hi. You recently blocked User:Cerejota for edit-warring. At the noticeboard you said something like "it was lame" (don't have patience to track down the diff, sorry). Anyway, I understood that to mean that it was lame to readd the tags. However, Cerejota has apparently understood your comments to mean that my bringing this to noticeboard was lame. I guess it's irrelevant, but I was just curious. Maybe you meant that the whole thing was lame. Whatever. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

You are right at this point it is irrelevant, so lets not refuel the fire. Tiptoety ^talk 15:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ericorbit

A comment you removed was reinserted by the accuser. — Realist² 16:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks. I dealt with it. Tiptoety ^talk 20:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, I was tempted to block him with my alternative admin account *Rolls eyes*. — Realist² 20:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

:P Tiptoety ^talk 20:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Knock knock! Thank you very much!

Thanks for protecting my user page.

Oh...because you've asked for it, a couple of knock knock jokes. The "orange you glad" classic: Knock knock! who's there? Banana! Banana who? Knock knock! Who's there? Banana! Banana who? Knock knock! Who's there? Orange! Orange who? Orange you glad I didn't say "banana!"

And the ODD version (this one is more corny than the above): Knock knock! I'm not answering the door! --Call me Bubba (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

G2Bambino

I would like a review of G2Bambino, who's new username is User:Miesianiacal. His restrictions are well hidden on his userpage. My main problem concerns the discussion on Talk:Monarchies_in_Europe. With User:Cameron, Miesianiacal has been fixated on removing a sublist of Commonwealth Realms, one which excludes the UK. But the reasoning is just nonsense. This is how it goes:

1. In November with G2bambino blocked, several users agreed to make many improvements at Cameron's initiation. One would think we came up with a good compromise and a large amount of information that Cameron objected to was removed [14].
2. When Miesianiacal replaced G2bambino in December, a new campaign resumed starting 14-Dec-2008. This would continue for four weeks. They keep saying that I have not sastified them with my answers or that I am not answering their questions, when I clearly raise points. They claim compromises that do not exist. Over 8000 words is written about nothing.
3. On 28-Dec-2008, two (2) RfC's are added [15] and [16], but quite separate from the existing discussion. Nothing happens, so they continue with the not good enough answer approach.
4. On 30-Dec-2008 G2bambino ask for a third opinion [17] which does not work because there are more than 3 opinions already.
5. I provide warnings about conduct as this constant cross-examination just is plain harassment, even if it is not impolite. Eventually, on 4-Jan-2009, I have had enough and I write: I am removing myself from this debate due to your poor conduct.
6. On the 9-Jan-2009, a new user User:BritishWatcher arrives with, word-for-word, the exact same suggestion as Cameron!!!
7. Miesianiacal writes on 9-Jan 'Are we to take it then that we all agree the list is redundant?'

This is the same pattern which was complained about. I urge you to look into this or provide some help. --Lawe (talk) 19:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hm I am not seeing any clear disruption here. But, I do see where you are coming from. I recommend that you request mediation and try some steps of dispute resolution. If those efforts are exhausted I would be more than willing to take action. Tiptoety ^talk 20:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Tiptoety, firstly: hello. Secondly, I am under the impression that WP:3O and WP:RFC are, respectively, the first and second steps of conflict resolution. If I am misguided in these actions, please advise. Your comments are also, of course, welcome at the talkpage RfC discussion. Best, --Miesianiacal (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they are. But they appear not to be working, at least according the the note left above. Also, I am more than willing to read over the RFC, but feel my place is a neutral administrator and as such will probably not comment. Tiptoety ^talk 20:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the RfC is now working, as three others have dropped in to offer their opinions; it had only been recently filed when Lawe left his note above. Fair enough on your reluctance to participate directly. I hope you'll at least cast your eye over the page from time to time. Best, --Miesianiacal (talk) 14:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in but I think it's a really good idea to remain neutral with regard to the content dispute. It seems settled now anyway. As to Miesianical's behaviour: In my opinion Miesianical has always remained civil, never violated any guidelines etc. Perhaps you could be more specific in your complaint? Notice that Miesiancail patiently ignores you accusations of POV pushing and poor conduct, without filing a report. Perhaps it would be a good idea to forget the matter and move on to pastures new. ;) --Cameron* 13:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

User Nikitn again

I'm sorry to bother you about this user again but now he is running wild again. Using bad language as before [18] and replacing sourced information with unsourced [19] and removing pictures without any explanation except that I had put it there [20]. Something surely has to be done with this disruptive user. Seems like he is just randomly going around trying to create conflicts [21]. Närking (talk) 20:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I left him a warning. Tiptoety ^talk 21:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You should probably comment...

Here. Giggy (talk) 03:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It is appreciated. Giggy (talk) 05:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Request IRC Invite

Hello Tiptoety. I sent you an email regarding inviting me to the #wikipedia-en-checkuser-clerks IRC. But my email is playing up on me. Please could you post you answer here instead. Regards Arctic Fox 18:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

At this time we are no longer accepting Request for CheckUser clerks as WP:RFCU is going to be merged with WP:SPI, and to clerk there you must first be a trainee clerk. As such, I already have a trainee making there very few open positions. For the relevant clerk page please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerks. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 20:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there anyone to take me on as a Trainee? Arctic Fox 09:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

My reply can be found here. Tiptoety ^talk 00:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case concerning Korlzor

In October 2008, you helped resolve a WP:RFCU case involving Korlzor and Wikitestor. Korlzor is currently blocked for one month, expiring on January 20, 2009. While blocked, he has been using numerous IP accounts to blatantly vandalize various discussion pages and articles. Yesterday, I filed a SSP case concerning this situation but have been informed that I should have filed another RFCU case instead. But for the life of me, I cannot figure out how to use the RFCU template for a new case given that the prior two RFCU cases show up in the edit box. Any help you could provide would be appreciated! Best regards. Tennis expert (talk) 10:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Fallow the directions here. Once you have done that (and at least created a case) I can go through and format it for you. Tiptoety ^talk 00:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Block

Hi, I really think your block on me was unfair, seeing as I was one of the many edit warriors. I sugest that next time you pay more atention to who the warriors are. Kalajan€₣ 15:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course you think the block was unfair, you were the one who was blocked and all blocked users feel the block was not justified, but guess what multiple other admins agreed with my block and declined your requests to be unblocked. Also, please note that you were blocked for your actions, so do not start going on about how others poor behavior justified yours. Tiptoety ^talk 20:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

See, I edit warred, but all I'm saying, Tippytoes Is that I wasn't the only one, and all the useless admins here had the laziness to agree without looking at the page history. Kalajan€₣ 22:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Choose your words carefully. Tiptoety ^talk 00:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

What did I say? Anything rude? I think not. Kalajan€₣ 16:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

List of World Wrestling Entertainment employees

Hello. I notice you recently changed the protection on this article due to edit warring. I have made a suggestion for article probation due to the high levels of edit warring. The suggestion can be found here. Your input is welcome. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 22:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello

I'm assuming you did not read any of the comments on the Ibaranoff24 CU case. The checkuser was not requested to get the IP blocked, it was to link the IP to the master account. Ibaranoff24 has denied the IP was him, it was all a little too obvious to be true. More than two admins expressed concerns it may be someone framing him. There was a lot of drama surrounding this particular case and someone very well could have framed him. Think about how easy that would be to do, anyone could assume Ibaranoff's editing pattern. As of now his block log will read "block evasion" forever when it may not have even been him. Everyone involved agreed a checkuser was necessary, I hope you will let an actual checkuser look at the case and decide for themselves. Landon1980 (talk) 03:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It appears a checkuser endorsed my decline. Tiptoety ^talk 03:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, that sure does make it easy to frame people. Maybe all of us are concerned over nothing, but it seems a little fishy. This just shows to get a blocked user blocked all you have to do is log out and assume their editing pattern and no one will even bother to check and see if it was really them. Landon1980 (talk) 03:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Remember  CheckUser is not for fishing. There are other ways to go about dealing with sockpuppets than requesting a CheckUser. Tiptoety ^talk 03:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah and what other way of tracing an IP back to an account is there other than a checkuser and I'll pursue that angle. Has nothing to do with fishing, not even similar. Landon1980 (talk) 03:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser

Hello Tip, could you please relist this case? FT2 was actually working on it as a checkuser, and a checkuser would be useful in the case, because, as noted, the block of Ibaranoff24 hinges on it.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Also see the new IP that has been added, this case was prematurely closed. A checkuser is needed. Landon1980 (talk) 06:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case concerning Alkclark

I think Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Alkclark should be banned completely, as this user has not only lied but also used this encyclopedia for cyber-bullying of other users such as myself. A 48-hour block is not sufficient. This devious user will only do the same thing again and I do not want to be subjected to anymore harassment. JWAD (talk) 19:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully agree with Jwad that the 48-hour block is not enough. This sock operation has been long running, not just recent, and across a large number of articles. It has been used both to abuse process and abuse other editors. It has featured almost every kind of sock manifestation: edit war bullying, talk page incivility and attacks, vote stacking, and good hand/bad hand deceptions. I gave examples of some of these at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Alkclark but I could give more if it would help. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay. You convinced me, it has been changed to indef. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 20:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Wasted Time R (talk) 20:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! JWAD (talk) 13:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kanonkas

Thank you Tiptoety for voting in my successfully closed RfA! I'm glad that you trust me. Ping me if you need anything! Best regards, --Kanonkas :  Talk  20:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

you asked for suggestions

Let's open up all the blue boxes in the new RFCU/SSP. Nobody has time to open all the blue boxes but if one scans them, one can sometimes add important evidence. Let's not hide stuff from scrutiny but leave it open like RFCU was. It's much easier to read, the old way! Chergles (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

That needs to be discussed on the talk page. There was consensus for the way it is currently, but consensus can change. Also note that the collapse boxes were not placed to "hide anything from scrutiny". Tiptoety ^talk 00:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

per your request

Knock, knock. Chergles (talk) 22:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Who's there? ☺Coppertwig(talk) 00:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

counter

Your vandalism counter is not working. I updated it to 93. Chergles (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Consider moving comments

Hi, Tiptoety. This may be considered hypocritical of me, since I've previously criticized you for moving stuff from an RfA to its talk page, but I would appreciate it if you, acting as an uninvolved person, would consider moving some or all of a thread from PeterSymonds' RfA to its talk page. I'm referring to the thread that begins at Caulde's neutral vote (the 2nd neutral vote on the RfA; the neutral section begins here), which has been struck out here; the ensuing thread seems to me to get off-topic and wikidrama-ish. I can't consider myself uninvolved because I've expressed support for Caulde in previous discussions of the incident being referred to, etc. Thanks for considering my request. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 00:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I can try later tonight. I currently have no time and am logging off. If it gets bad, contact a b-crat at WP:BN. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 00:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops. I had linked to the wrong RfA in two of my links above; I'm fixing the links with this edit. It's the currently running RfA, not PeterSymonds' first RfA. Thanks. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 03:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

-esti

Recently I noticed that the article -esti (not the actual title, but the real name is untypable). All I got was that you deleted it. No explanation was given, and there was no vote. Why was it deleted?SPNic (talk) 04:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for -esti

An editor has asked for a deletion review of -esti. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. SPNic (talk) 04:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your excellent work at getting SPI a reality. That is a very difficult thing to do, and you managed to pull it off very well. You really deserve this! Xclamation point 04:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so very much! Tiptoety ^talk 23:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

User Nikitn again

Unfortunately your warning didn't help. Nikitn continues to delete sourced material and replace them with his own unsourced figures [22]. The user also continues to use bad langauge [23]. And while deleting a proper source he ask me to find one [24]. And just because s/he doesn't like the outcome of different battles he change the figures according to his own head[25]. It's surely not serious editing to call several wellknown and respected Swedish and Finnish historians "idiots" [26] (besides that his claim they lived 200 years ago can be found as a clear lie if one only reads when the books are written). This is a clear case of disruptive behaviour. And it's clear that a short time block doesn't help this user. As you know this user has been blocked and warned several times before. And if you check his edit history there are no cases of serious editing. Närking (talk) 13:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Now he has also sent me an e-mail where he calls me "a biased little shit". If needed I can forward this e-mail to you. Närking (talk) 19:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

More info: the e-mail I got from Nikitn came via my YouTube-page so apparently s/he has started to stalk and harrass me also outside of Wikipedia. Närking (talk) 13:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

what is going on here?

I'm still wondering why these 2 folks have exactly the same edits? Please see the diff of the most recent edits after the checkuser report was closed as "no action". Thanks, --Roadahead ★ 18:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

A block can be made without CheckUser evidence, if you feel something was done wrong you can always ask for clerk or administrative assistance. Tiptoety ^talk 23:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Is it acceptable to ask for help directly from you here on the talkpage itself (you are familiar with the edits these 2 accounts from the checkuser report). Or, do I have to file the assistance report formally somewhere? --Roadahead ★ 00:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

...and by the way, I loved the layout/design of your talkpage :) ...I would like to copy (with may be a little change) if you permit. --Roadahead ★ 18:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

As for the talk page, you are more than welcome to use it (this is Wikipedia ya' know ;-) ). Tiptoety ^talk 23:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, :) --Roadahead ★ 00:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

More socking

Hi,

Regards this archived talk discussion, note that there is (based on contribution history) another sock puppet via the creation of Xtreme abuse survey (see the deleted contributions history of Tn25dog). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. Tiptoety ^talk 23:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Gracias. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

Hey,

Have you decided if you will give me rollback rights? =) Aaroncrick (talk) 03:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I am waiting for another admin's thoughts. Just hang tight. ;-) Tiptoety ^talk 03:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Haha ok (Aaroncrick (talk) 03:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to you, Sir!

Thanks a lot for your commitment and involvement in making SPI come true. If FT2 brought the idea to life, you were always here to push the it forward, make it grow, and kept working in the shadows for more than 6 months. I'm just a passer-by. If SPI is live and well today, that's thanks to you! The work is not finished yet, the paint is not wet, but this is getting nicely! Mrs. Landingham, What's next? -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		So you can say: I made SPI come true and all I got was this crappy barnstar -- lucasbfr talk 12:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Thank you Tiptoety for your barnstar, however you deserve the barnstar for making SPI live with your tireless work! :) The Helpful One 17:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPI clerking

I'm interested in becoming a trainee clerk at WP:SPI. I have some experience of sock spotting and reporting, and I think I could bring something to this area. Mayalld (talk) 17:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. I have added you to the list. I will send you a email within 24 hours with more information. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 19:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)